Dave B. wrote:This wasn't said to me but damn if this isn't one of the stupidest arguments I have ever heard. If he isn't a troll then he's the dumbest fuck I've ever come across.

gilbo12345 wrote:I've been wandering the internet and I keep finding sound-bites made by evolutionists in order to try and prop up their failing "theory".

Among the many that are both amusing and frustrating are the claims that "evolution predicted X"

Firstly, such a claim implies that evolution is a conscious entity, capable of making sentient thoughts such as being able to "predict" something.Secondly, considering that evolution is founded on mutations which are random, this means there can be no prediction. Since the process relies on a random element, can randomness be predicted? Not at all if you are going off the standard definition of random.

Thirdly, when one makes a prediction it is being made about something that is going to occur in the future. Hence when evolutionists find fossils (or DNA) that are similar and then claim that such is a "prediction". Then the evolutionist is being either incredibly ignorant of science, or intellectually dishonest, since such cannot be deemed a "prediction of evolution" because there was no prediction of such until after the fossils (or DNA) were found

I have encountered this person on this board, Evolutionfairytale, and YouTube. He is as dumb as he sounds. He once made a post in the middle of the OFNF vs AronRa debate challenging AronRa to a debate on Evolutionfairytale. When his post was ignored, he called this proof that AronRa was afraid of debating creationists.

Dave B. wrote:This wasn't said to me but damn if this isn't one of the stupidest arguments I have ever heard. If he isn't a troll then he's the dumbest fuck I've ever come across.

gilbo12345 wrote:I've been wandering the internet and I keep finding sound-bites made by evolutionists in order to try and prop up their failing "theory".

Among the many that are both amusing and frustrating are the claims that "evolution predicted X"

Firstly, such a claim implies that evolution is a conscious entity, capable of making sentient thoughts such as being able to "predict" something.Secondly, considering that evolution is founded on mutations which are random, this means there can be no prediction. Since the process relies on a random element, can randomness be predicted? Not at all if you are going off the standard definition of random.

Thirdly, when one makes a prediction it is being made about something that is going to occur in the future. Hence when evolutionists find fossils (or DNA) that are similar and then claim that such is a "prediction". Then the evolutionist is being either incredibly ignorant of science, or intellectually dishonest, since such cannot be deemed a "prediction of evolution" because there was no prediction of such until after the fossils (or DNA) were found

Can someone tell me which one is better?1. He is too stupid to figure out that "evolution predicted X" is not meant to be taken literally as in "evolution is not a sentien being, what was meant by evolution predicted X is that evolutionary biologists successfully predicted X based on the theory of evolution".or 2. He knows that "evolution is not a sentien being, what was meant by "evolution predicted X" is that evolutionary biologists successfully predicted an X based on the theory of evolution" but he expects every other creationists to be 1.

"Slavery is morally ok" - "I don't know how the burden of proof works in the mind of atheists but I don't have to prove my claims" - Public information messages from the League of Reason's christians

JRChadwick wrote:I have encountered this person on this board, Evolutionfairytale, and YouTube. He is as dumb as he sounds. He once made a post in the middle of the OFNF vs AronRa debate challenging AronRa to a debate on Evolutionfairytale. When his post was ignored, he called this proof that AronRa was afraid of debating creationists.

If you ever go on the EFF boards and don't drink the kool-aid provided there, your posts will get deleted and/or remarked by the moderator saying why your post is wrong for whatever reason. Check out rule 6 of the forum rules"

EFF wrote:Equivocation, particularly regarding what "evolution" means. It is intellectually dishonest to claim that micro-evolution (something everyone agrees occurs) proves that all life originates from a common ancestor.

Gilbo runs back there because he knows no one can respond to his shit in their little echo chamber since the moderators will delete any dissenting opinion.

"But this is irrelevant because in either case, whether a god exists or not, whether your God (with a capital G) exists or not, it doesn't matter. We both are, in either case, evolved apes. " - Nesslig20

Can someone tell me which one is better?1. He is too stupid to figure out that "evolution predicted X" is not meant to be taken literally as in "evolution is not a sentien being, what was meant by evolution predicted X is that evolutionary biologists successfully predicted X based on the theory of evolution".or 2. He knows that "evolution is not a sentien being, what was meant by "evolution predicted X" is that evolutionary biologists successfully predicted an X based on the theory of evolution" but he expects every other creationists to be 1.

I honestly believe that he's a troll and / or a poe that suffers from the Dunning-Kruger Effect... or some other mental impairment. Most of his "arguments" are semantical nonsense rife with logical fallacies and the rest are PRATTs that even most YECs no longer use. Polystrate trees and Paluxy footprints? Seriously?

Regardless of what his agenda is he's a fucking arrogant little shit. The patience of some of the atheists posting in that thread is absolutely astounding.

JRChadwick wrote:I have encountered this person on this board, Evolutionfairytale, and YouTube. He is as dumb as he sounds. He once made a post in the middle of the OFNF vs AronRa debate challenging AronRa to a debate on Evolutionfairytale. When his post was ignored, he called this proof that AronRa was afraid of debating creationists.

If you ever go on the EFF boards and don't drink the kool-aid provided there, your posts will get deleted and/or remarked by the moderator saying why your post is wrong for whatever reason. Check out rule 6 of the forum rules"

EFF wrote:Equivocation, particularly regarding what "evolution" means. It is intellectually dishonest to claim that micro-evolution (something everyone agrees occurs) proves that all life originates from a common ancestor.

Gilbo runs back there because he knows no one can respond to his shit in their little echo chamber since the moderators will delete any dissenting opinion.

That was something I tried discussing with them on that board. I tried to show that micro and macro evolution were caused by the exact same mechanisms and differed only in time scale, but they refused to accept it. Their mode of operation was to reject everything I said as "[my] opinion" unless I provided a scientific source that proved them wrong. It did not matter what I could prove, unless I could provide a peer reviewed study that had the line, "so in conclusion, EvolutionFairyTale's strawman version of evolution is wrong." they could ignore everything I said.

Last time I was there, the rules page was broken. I remember that quoting Talk Origins is a bannable offense.

I'll apologise if this one was said before:Any time a creationist claims that, "Maybe God just made the Earth look old. He created an adult man in Adam so why wouldn't he create the Earth in a similar way."

Do they not realise that since their god is suppose to be all knowing that he would know we'd work out how radiodecay works, the speed of light, etc and notice that all these things point to a universe hundreds of times older than the "inspired history"? They don't rescue their myth by claiming that the omnibenevolent imaginary friend created a deceptive world that would cause some people to be skeptical of the claims of the myth.

Pretend that you have a book about ancient Egypt that you believe was written by a very good historian.

Given this assumption it makes sense to assume that the book has reliable information about ancient Egypt,…….. sure the author of the book could have had created a book with lies, misinformation, but in this hypothetical case, the default answer should be that the book is reliable until proven wrong.

In this analogy:

Book = Free Will / Human brain

Historian = God

However at the end of the day, both theist and atheist would have to admit that no one knows what causes “free will” and therefore we can´t make much predictions about the origin of free will.

Where to begin? Recently, there was one creationist on finnish forum that claimed that handicapped persons are due the sins of their parents.

These men of God...the most stupid, immoral things i have heard are from mouth of a creationist. I have pure hatred on these sub human filth, i just wish they die. Fuck them, i made a decision to not a lift a finger to help these kind of people. I fucking hate them from bottom of my heart.

"There are those to whom knowledge is a shield, and those to whom it is a weapon. Neither view is balanced, but one is less unwise."

One fundie recently made a topic in finnish christian forum about archaeological evidence related to Pharaoh's army in biblical exodus. He gave a few creationist sources, all of them pointed to the original source, which was....a satirical news site. I and a few others pointed this out to him, but he refused to believe it and instead accused us of making excuses because we are afraid of the truth.

"There are those to whom knowledge is a shield, and those to whom it is a weapon. Neither view is balanced, but one is less unwise."